Some insight into why Philbin was fired and Gase was hired.

[Rich]

On the other hand, nobody's livelihood was as dependent on Ryan Tannehill's performance as Joe Philbin's, and nobody had a more high-powered microscope on Tannehill's performance from week-to-week and from season-to-season than Philbin.

Philbin was the guy, long before Tannenbaum showed up, who was reviewing tape of Tannehill's performance every week, with complete knowledge of how closely it approximated what the team was intending to accomplish.  When the team wanted something from a given play call, Joe Philbin was in the best position known to man to evaluate whether Ryan Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in that regard.

Again, Joe Philbin could indeed be wrong about Ryan Tannehill, but there probably isn't a person on the planet who has as much of the best kind of information available about how Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that kind of information available to us on a message board, and I'm not sure Mike Tannenbaum has it either.

Joe Philbin also displayed a bad habit of pushing to get rid of talented players so he could bring in "his guys". So his talent evaluation prowess is certainly not beyond reproach.

Joe Philbin also had very little experience in developing a quarterback, let alone an offense, because he spent most of his time at Green Bay doing whatever Mike McCarthy told him to do.

[Dolfanalyst]

Joe Philbin also displayed a bad habit of pushing to get rid of talented players so he could bring in "his guys". So his talent evaluation prowess is certainly not beyond reproach.

Joe Philbin also had very little experience in developing a quarterback, let alone an offense, because he spent most of his time at Green Bay doing whatever Mike McCarthy told him to do.

And again, he could be wrong, but again, I'm not sure there's anybody on earth who has better information about how Ryan Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that here, and so I don't think we should immediately dismiss Philbin's appraisal, thinking somehow we know better, or thinking we know something else about Joe Philbin that immediately discredits his appraisal of Tannehill.

In other words, Joe Philbin's appraisal of Ryan Tannehill, in the absence of better information, and in the absence of the ability to discredit Philbin with certainty, should be viewed as a fairly weighty piece of evidence in the larger appraisal of Tannehill we're all doing.  Once again, Philbin could be wrong, but we sure can't say he is right now with any certainty.

[Rich]

And again, he could be wrong, but again, I'm not sure there's anybody on earth who has better information about how Ryan Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that here, and so I don't think we should immediately dismiss Philbin's appraisal, thinking somehow we know better, or thinking we know something else about Joe Philbin that immediately discredits his appraisal of Tannehill.

In other words, Joe Philbin's appraisal of Ryan Tannehill, in the absence of better information, and in the absence of the ability to discredit Philbin with certainty, should be viewed as a fairly weighty piece of evidence in the larger appraisal of Tannehill we're all doing.  Once again, Philbin could be wrong, but we sure can't say he is right now with any certainty.

A coach who:

1. Asked his offense to throw the ball almost 70% of the time (despite not believing in his QB)
2. Believed in Dallas Thomas
3. Got rid of Vontae Davis
4. Couldn't figure out the right time to take a timeout
5. Needed notecards for post game victory speeches
6. Couldn't fire Mike Sherman
7. Couldn't fire Kevin Coyle
8. Couldn't keep the locker room in order

The list could go on and on.. but we all know the story.

That coach doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. He may have "more information", but he wouldn't know what to do with it.

[Tenshot13]

On the other hand, nobody's livelihood was as dependent on Ryan Tannehill's performance as Joe Philbin's, and nobody had a more high-powered microscope on Tannehill's performance from week-to-week and from season-to-season than Philbin.

Philbin was the guy, long before Tannenbaum showed up, who was reviewing tape of Tannehill's performance every week, with complete knowledge of how closely it approximated what the team was intending to accomplish.  When the team wanted something from a given play call, Joe Philbin was in the best position known to man to evaluate whether Ryan Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in that regard.

Again, Joe Philbin could indeed be wrong about Ryan Tannehill, but there probably isn't a person on the planet who has as much of the best kind of information available about how Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that kind of information available to us on a message board, and I'm not sure Mike Tannenbaum has it either.

False.  I know a guy.

[Spider-Dan]

And again, he could be wrong, but again, I'm not sure there's anybody on earth who has better information about how Ryan Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that here, and so I don't think we should immediately dismiss Philbin's appraisal, thinking somehow we know better, or thinking we know something else about Joe Philbin that immediately discredits his appraisal of Tannehill.

It is fair to say that Philbin evaluated Tannehill more closely than any other person in the league.

The problem is that we have no idea whether Philbin's evaluations were accurate.  To the contrary: what we do know is that Philbin was consistently wrong in his evaluation of other players.

So the fact that Philbin spent lots of time analyzing Tannehill tells us nothing, because there is no evidence that Philbin knows how to correctly analyze QBs; he was the OL coach when Rodgers was drafted, and Rodgers' role as Favre's successor was already determined before he took over as OC (plus, he wasn't even calling the plays in GB).

[Dolfanalyst]

It is fair to say that Philbin evaluated Tannehill more closely than any other person in the league.

The problem is that we have no idea whether Philbin's evaluations were accurate.  To the contrary: what we do know is that Philbin was consistently wrong in his evaluation of other players.

So the fact that Philbin spent lots of time analyzing Tannehill tells us nothing, because there is no evidence that Philbin knows how to correctly analyze QBs; he was the OL coach when Rodgers was drafted, and Rodgers' role as Favre's successor was already determined before he took over as OC (plus, he wasn't even calling the plays in GB).

And so that gets at my point, that we can't necessarily say Philbin was right (I said several times he may be wrong), but whose evaluation of Tannehill counters Philbin's so that we -- John Q. Fan -- can say he's wrong with any certainty?  Who has evaluated Ryan Tannehill as closely as a pro, and had more of his livelihood riding on Ryan Tannehill's play, than Joe Philbin?

If there were answers to those questions with the identity of an individual(s) who knew just as much as or more about Tannehill as a pro than Philbin, we'd have more to go on here, but we have only Philbin, and Philbin's appraisal was reportedly negative.  He may have been wrong about other players, but that doesn't mean he was wrong about Tannehill.  It just means he may be wrong.

[Spider-Dan]

And so that gets at my point, that we can't necessarily say Philbin was right (I said several times he may be wrong), but whose evaluation of Tannehill counters Philbin's so that we -- John Q. Fan -- can say he's wrong with any certainty?

Everyone still employed by the Dolphins.

Who has evaluated Ryan Tannehill as closely as a pro, and had more of his livelihood riding on Ryan Tannehill's play, than Joe Philbin?

Again, this doesn't mean anything when the available evidence strongly suggests that Philbin was bad at evaluating players.  It's ridiculous to assign more weight to the opinion of a known poor evaluator of players on the sole basis that he (probably? maybe?) has watched more film on a given player than other people in the organization.

If there were answers to those questions with the identity of an individual(s) who knew just as much as or more about Tannehill as a pro than Philbin, we'd have more to go on here, but we have only Philbin, and Philbin's appraisal was reportedly negative. 

No, we don't have "only Philbin."  At a very minimum, we have Dennis Hickey, Mike Tannebaum, and Chris Grier.

[Dolfanalyst]

At a very minimum, we have Dennis Hickey, Mike Tannebaum, and Chris Grier.

That's actually who we have at maximum, and the first of those individuals was just fired, the third has no experience at his current position and looks to have been placed in a in a fairly conservative role within the organization, and the second for all we know is trying desperately to make the contract he gave Tannehill look sensible so as to keep his job.

Now, obviously if any of their appraisals of Tannehill is at odds with Philbin's, they could indeed be right, and Philbin could be wrong, but questions can be raised about their credibility in this area just as they can about Philbin's.

Moreover, not a single one of them was as privy as Philbin to how well Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in helping the team accomplish what it was intending to from play to play and game to game (i.e., reviewing game film with the knowledge of the team's intent from play to play).

[Spider-Dan]

That's actually who we have at maximum, and the first of those individuals was just fired, the third has no experience at his current position and looks to have been placed in a in a fairly conservative role within the organization, and the second for all we know is trying desperately to make the contract he gave Tannehill look sensible so as to keep his job.

Wrong.  At maximum, we have:

- every QB coach since 2012
- every offensive coordinator since 2012
- Jeff Ireland
- Dan Campbell

Now, obviously if any of their appraisals of Tannehill is at odds with Philbin's, they could indeed be right, and Philbin could be wrong, but questions can be raised about their credibility in this area just as they can about Philbin's.

Again, if reports are true about Philbin running Marshall/Davis/Wallace out of town, at a minimum the others on the list did not do that.  Furthermore, it is specifically Philbin's job to coach players and get the best performance from them.  So again, we are left with a coach who cannot (or refuses to) coach, trying (and usually succeeding) to discard the best players on his team.

Moreover, not a single one of them was as privy as Philbin to how well Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in helping the team accomplish what it was intending to from play to play and game to game (i.e., reviewing game film with the knowledge of the team's intent from play to play).

Let us set aside, for the moment, the unlikeliness of the QB coach and the offensive coordinator being less interested in evaluating Tannehill's performance than the head coach (who ostensibly is also spending time evaluating the defense and special teams).

You are claiming that the GM - a person whose job it is to decide who to sign, who to cut, and who to extend - is less concerned with evaluating their most important player than the head coach (who also has myriad other responsibilities with the team).

Such a claim requires some supporting evidence.

[Dolfanalyst]

You are claiming that the GM - a person whose job it is to decide who to sign, who to cut, and who to extend - is less concerned with evaluating their most important player than the head coach (who also has myriad other responsibilities with the team).

Such a claim requires some supporting evidence.

No, I'm not claiming that.  I'm claiming that no single person in the organization experienced as much of the combination of 1) being privy to whether Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in helping the team accomplish what it was intending to on a play-by-play basis (i.e., reviewing game film with the knowledge of what the team was intending to accomplish play-to-play), and 2) having his livelihood hang in the balance of it.

Again, Philbin could be wrong about Tannehill, but it's foolish in my opinion to just toss his assessment of Tannehill aside as though we know it isn't credible.  We don't know that.  We hope it isn't credible, but we don't know it is.

When we just toss that assessment aside as though we know it's inaccurate, we're simply revealing a bias within ourselves in my opinion.  That assessment should simply be added to the pile of information that currently indicates a great deal of uncertainty about Tannehill overall.  Just like we don't know that assessment is right, we also don't know it's wrong.

It's okay to be uncertain!  We don't know everything!

[Rich]

Some insight from PFF on why Gase chose Miami.

I particularly find the bolded paragraph interesting because here is the most used metrics site rating Tannehill very highly in 2013 and 2014 and yet we are being led to believe he's the issue by some people who love quoting the metrics.

Why isn't this metric quoted by those people?

Why new Miami coach Adam Gase and QB Ryan Tannehill are a good match

The hiring of new Dolphins head coach Adam Gase should have a positive impact on quarterback Ryan Tannehill.

Adam Gase was a hot commodity this offseason, with interviews planned for most teams in the NFL with a head-coaching vacancy. He opted to join the Miami Dolphins, however, and while his motivations for doing so are known only to him, it’s fair to assume that the team having a settled quarterback situation played a part.

Here’s why Gase and QB Ryan Tannehill appear to be a perfect match:

Tannehill has lots of ability: This season was a rough one for Tannehill, as he ranked just 24th in the NFL in PFF’s passing grades – a huge drop-off from his previous performances. He put together an excellent season in 2013, finishing as our fifth-ranked QB. He ranked in the top 10 of our grades in 2014, as well, a sign that this past season may have been more of an aberration than an indication that he isn’t capable of high-level play. And there is reason to believe that Gase could be the perfect coach to get the best out of him.

Gase’s track record with QBs is excellent: It’s hard to quantify just how much of Peyton Manning’s success in Denver had to do with Gase, as Manning’s Hall of Fame resume existed well before the two worked together, but Manning certainly speaks highly of his former coach. And John Fox clearly acknowledges Gase’s ability, taking him to Chicago with him to lead the Bears’ offense under Jay Cutler.

Cutler was coming off a dreadful season in 2014 during which he ranked as our 35th overall QB. Gase certainly seemed to have a positive impact, as Cutler ended the year as our 17th overall QB. There are a number of similarities between the offense Gase ran in Chicago and some elements of Tannehill’s offense under offensive coordinator Bill Lazor. Both have a preference for the no-huddle and use the read-option in the run game to hold the backside defender. Gase is likely to keep those features, suggesting an overhaul isn’t required in Miami.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2016/01/10/pro-why-new-miami-coach-adam-gase-and-qb-ryan-tannehill-are-a-good-match/

[Dolfanalyst]

Some insight from PFF on why Gase chose Miami.

I particularly find the bolded paragraph interesting because here is the most used metrics site rating Tannehill very highly in 2013 and 2014 and yet we are being led to believe he's the issue by some people who love quoting the metrics.

Why isn't this metric quoted by those people?

If a metric is to be trusted, its validity has to be determined.  If the metric isn't measuring what it's purported to measure, it's invalid.

How shall we determine the validity of this particular metric?

[Rich]

If a metric is to be trusted, its validity has to be determined.  If the metric isn't measuring what it's purported to measure, it's invalid.

How shall we determine the validity of this particular metric?

If you can trust the source for the metrics that are convenient for your argument, you should trust the source for the metrics that aren't and vice versa.

If you trust PFF for pass blocking efficiency to make your argument that the Dolphins offensive line is not significantly worse than the league average, you should trust PFF with their evaluation of passing.

Otherwise, stop quoting PFF.

[Dolfanalyst]

If you can trust the source for the metrics that are convenient for your argument, you should trust the source for the metrics that aren't and vice versa.

If you trust PFF for pass blocking efficiency to make your argument that the Dolphins offensive line is not significantly worse than the league average, you should trust PFF with their evaluation of passing.

Otherwise, stop quoting PFF.

There is a difference between metrics that are based on objective information, and ones that are based on subjective observations.

The QB rating statistic, for example, is based entirely on objective information.  The metric you're referencing above, however, is based on the subjective observations and interpretations of the PFF staff.

PFF consists of both types of metrics.

I'm happy to use either type, because either type may be informative, but again, I'd like to determine first whether the metric is valid, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to do that.

[Rich]

There is a difference between metrics that are based on objective information, and ones that are based on subjective observations.

The QB rating statistic, for example, is based entirely on objective information.  The metric you're referencing above, however, is based on the subjective observations and interpretations of the PFF staff.

PFF consists of both types of metrics.

I'm happy to use either type, because either type may be informative, but again, I'd like to determine first whether the metric is valid, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to do that.

The pass block efficiency metric is also based on "subjective" information because PFF reviews the film to determine how the offensive line is performing as a whole. But you don't have a problem referencing that metric to make your point.

How have you determined that Pass Blocking Efficiency is a valid metric?